Is Gun Control a Human Right?

As I’ve written before, leftists in the U.S. are accustomed to scoring political victories by shifting words and phrases, by twisting the language so that words communicate something other than what they were meant to communicate. By doing this, the left inches its way further and further into our lives, extending government into areas where the Founding Fathers never meant for government to be.

Their current obsession with human rights is a perfect example. And all the supposed “rights” they are now pushing — a right to education, contraception, public transportation, abortion, internet access — ultimately increase government’s reach into our lives, thereby reducing our liberties and our freedom. And what we need to understand is that this pursuit of human rights instead of natural rights is not just limited to leftists in the U.S. In fact, it is not as prevalent here as in other, “enlightened” countries.

Take China, for instance. There, where the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is vanished by a one-child policy that forces women to abort every child after their first one, accusations are now being levied that the U.S. violates the human rights of its citizens by allowing private gun ownership. That’s right — China contends that private gun ownership is a violation of human rights.

Why? Because honoring the 2nd Amendment has resulted in “rampant gun ownership.” (It’s a circular argument, I know, but coming from Chinese officials, who are used to being the only ones with guns, and therefore accustomed to telling their own people when to jump and how high, it probably makes sense.)

Their implication is that “rampant gun ownership” contributes to rampant crime, thus the U.S. is guilty of “[prioritizing] the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security.” This claim is wrong in at least two ways:

Second, honoring the natural right to keep and bear arms is not prioritized “over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security,” rather, it is done because it enables citizens to protect their lives and keep themselves secure — period.

To put it another way, an armed populace is capable of defending their lives and property. Which is one of the reasons George Washington wrote that “free people ought … to be armed.”

43 Comments, 20 Threads

1.
eon

During World War II, while the Japanese strategy in the Pacific involved invading the Philippines and attacking the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, the nearest it came to a direct assault on the continental United States was seizing the islands of Kiska and Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians chain southwest of Alaska.

They were taken in the hope of denying the island chain to the U.S. as a base for long-range bombing raids on the northern Japanese home islands, where much of their fisheries industry (necessary to feed their populace) was situated. (In the end, the U.S. retook those islands, and the raids the Japanese command feared did indeed ensue.)

The Japanese plan did not even consider invading the mainland of the United States itself, in fact it did not even include the option of attempting to seize Hawaii. The reason was that the planners were well aware of the number of firearms, including the eponymous “deer rifles”, in civilian hands in the U.S., and concluded that they simply could never absorb the casualties they would take in even a limited operation against the U.S. West Coast.

What this has to do with this column is that at the time, the Japanese Army was heavily engaged on the Asian mainland- invading China. And in spite of the large available manpower reserves of China, had since 1932 taken and held substantial portions of the country-which they would still control at the time of the Japanese surrender in September 1945.

The Chinese were certainly no weaker than the Japanese; in fact, they had them outnumbered. But the only weapons the Japanese had to worry about in China were those in the hands of the military and police. Once they were neutralized, much of China became a Japanese possession.

I’d say the point is pretty obvious. An armed populace is very difficult to control, even with a large and professional army with the authority and willingness to shoot to kill. An unarmed populace is a different story entirely.

As to why the Chinese government even cares about the state of firearms ownership in the U.S., I suspect that it’s one more example of the way U.S. law offends the sensibilities of those have absolute power and/or crave more of it. Also, the old men in Beijing view the American left as their natural allies- or maybe puppets- and want to do anything they can to assist them in gaining, and keeping, that level of power.

Oh, and BTW- if they’re that “sensitive” to civilian gun ownership in the U.S., why is Norinco (owned and operated by the People’s Liberation Army) one of the biggest suppliers of imported firearms sold to civilians in the U.S.?

Of course, to those who view themselves as the “irresistible wave of the future”, hypocrisy is a way of life.

I have read that quote also. Just trying quoting that to a gun control loving liberal. They will smugly respond “I never heard that! Where did you read that?” Remember , (to paraphrase on old rhyme about Benjamin Jowett) “liberals are have all knowledge, and if they don’t know it isn’t knowledge” .

I find particularly amusing coming from the Chinese, who have periodically, systematically and serially burned their libraries and slaughtered their scholars. And who, in recent memory, have made some of history’s worst mass murderers look like amateurs.

“Only he who has conquered his own people first can conquer a strong enemy… When the people are weak the state is strong; when the state is weak the people are strong. Hence the state that follows a true course strives to weaken the people.” Shang Yang – Ruler of Shang Province, 4th Century, B.C.

This is, of course, assuming one intends to subjugate the enemy. A strong people and a weak state is certainly capable of overcoming a mighty enemy when the people are sure of the justice of their cause and fight as liberators rather than conquerors.

and this all makes perfect sense when one ponders China’s recent sabre-rattling along the lines of wanting to subjugate the USA at some point in the future. Beginning to conflate “gun control/confiscation” with “human rights” feeds right into that. Don’t like a rifleman behind every blade of grass? Take away their rifles by shaming, or legislation, or force.. or trickery. Redefine a “right” as they do, it makes it easier.

What these dummies fail to realise, however, is that we who HAVE the guns are fully cognisnt of their fuller significance.. well beyond mere “tools” for “hunting” and “recreation”, we understand them to be the very swords that have gained, and continue to preserve, our freedom. Like the final line says: from my cold, dead hands. Read about Hezekiah Wyman, who celebrated his 55th birthday on 19 April, 1775, in a rather unique manner……. he risked all and succeeded in exacting a heavy toll on Col. Smith’s Regulars that day… and was untouched. A patriot first, a rifleman second, the two so bound together in the one man they defined him.

I tend to think this “report” is a “favor” that the Obama administration asked of the ChiComs. Recall the disgraceful appearance before Congress of Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa. After making the speech insulting Arizona he launched into a tirade against the 2nd amendment which was not really covered by the media at the time. I think his entire speech was requested by Obama and Hillary.

It’s the standard commie tactic of deflection, misdirection and dissembling. In this case, the accuserr runs a vast network of political concentration camps where it engages in organ harvesting and spends nearly as much on internal security spyimg on it’s own people as it does on its military. Human rights, indeed.

Any language about any subject by the Chinese should immediately seen as duplicitous. They use that language because they understand the left better than the left understands the left. The left in this country hates gun ownership, and the Chinese are just ringing Pavlov’s bell and seeing if they can get their myrmidon fellow travelers to amp up their assault, pardon the pun. The United Nation is the exact same animal, and frankly China and Russia probably exert most of the power there, while we continue to pour in the cash.

As Eon said. The United States is the unique position it is in because there has never been an army big enough to invade us for the very reason he outlined. You cannot take over a populace that is willing to resist you house to house and has the means to do so. Unfortunately the will to do so is quickly fading, and any invading army, no matter how far-fetched that sounds at the moment, will find many more people willing to roll over than they would have 30 years ago.

When the German’s were going to launch Operation Tannenbaum against Switzerland, they were forced to acknowledge the Swiss’ culture plan of Redoubt. That is, the Swiss would not surrender. It was officially known by all citizens that any order of surrender at the national level should be ignored and the resistance should fight to the last man. Thus, the Germans new it would be too costly to invade Switzerland, and they didn’t.

I believe guns are a human right. The right to defend yourself against the encroaching elitism of those who want to build monuments to themselves and your whip scarred back.

Re Operation Tannenbaum, Hitler finally turned thumbs down on it because, in his own words, the only thing the Wehrmacht stood to gain from invading Switzerland was casualties. Something they could ill afford in the early 1942 timeframe, between the North African campaign and the Ostfront.

While it’s true that dictators, as a rule, don’t much care about the health and well-being of their peoples (the Iran-Iraq War being just one case in point), by the same token most are not big enough fools to engage in fights they cannot win.

Even today, the more intelligent ones keep the fate of Benito Mussolini firmly in mind. They worry far less about foreign armies conquering them, than they do about what their own people might do to their “Glorious Leader” if he was no longer protected by an army willing to kill on his command to “keep order”.

Losing the loyalty of the army is one thing, which is why the USSR had both an army and the KGB, which amounted to an entirely separate army tasked with controlling the populace and the “actual” army.

It’s an entirely different thing to end up running out of willing shooters due to attrition. Even a tinpot dictator of the Third World type is generally smart enough to realize that running out of gun-bunnies isn’t conducive to a long reign. Or continued breathing, for that matter.

In the perfect utopian world, all people would live in peace, secure under an all powerful, benevolent ruler. To leftists, and communists, this is the central government. In this political model, private ownership of weapons would be both unnecessary and dangerous. Hence one human right would be to be free of such dangers from others.

The fallacy of this thinking was well known to the framers of our Constitution. They had first hand knowledge of their powerful, benevolent ruler, King George III of England, a madman, who followed centuries of unending European wars between other benevolent rulers. So the practical framers added two individual (not government) rights: the right to speak out and pray, followed by the right to own a functioning weapon. Hitler, on the first day in office, repealed both rights. It took 65,000,000 killings to stop him.

When governments execute their leaders before they become dictators, and develop centuries of this experience, it will be safe to surrender our weapons to the state. Neither US, after almost three centuries of governance, or China, after several generations, have purged monsters from power, before they enslave and kill. As long as evil exists in the hearts of power seeking people, this will always be true.

Thus the imperfect plan B: citizens must be armed, and know the basic skills. Armed citizens are the ultimate guarantors of freedom.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms is the Prime Right from which all other rights descend. Or as I wrote in one of my e-novels, “Rights are taken by the sword and held by the sword”. History proves that this is true.

Based on everything becoming a “right” lately, it occurred to me if government provided birth control for recreational entertainment (pregnancy free sex) is a “right” though not enumerated in the Constitution, a form of entertainment that is enumerated as a “right” in the Constitution (gun ownership) should also be provided by the government at no cost. I’ll take an AR15, thanks. And don’t forget the ammo.

It seems that the left thinks every modern convenience is a human right except gun ownership. Why is that?

I always turn it around on them and the conversation ends rather quickly.

Without a right to self-defense there is in effect no right to life. The Soviet Constitution contained words on paper which proclaimed its citizens had a “right to life,” and yet the Soviet government murdered about 30 million of their own innocent civilians.

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves… We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?” Joseph Stalin

“Death is the solution to all problems. No man – no problem.” Joseph Stalin

There is only 2 ways in which one can get another human being to do their bidding. Reason or force. One cannot force those who can fight back, therefore they can only reason with them. You arm any opressed citizenry and they will not be opressed for very long.

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;… that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. “ James Madison

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government… The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Thomas Jefferson

It was a large number of skilled patriot riflemen who carried the War for Independence against the tyrannical, oppressive Crown. They trained well and often, were excellent marksmen, and simply out-shot the British. Long range well aimed fire turned many battles toward those defending their homeland against the corrupt overlords. The poorly trained and motivated hirelings simply could not withstand them.

While mainstream historians dispute that view, citing the battles fought in convwentional European style with massed infantry firing smoothbore muskets “by the numbers” such as Yorktown, they often overlook the fact that those battles were by and large fought toward the end of the conflict (1780-83).

Earlier, the Continental Army was not capable of fighting “set-piece” battles because while there were certainly enough muskets to go around (Michael Bellesisles to the contrary), there simply wasn’t enough gunpowder available.

The Battle of Bunker Hill lasted for the duration of two musket volleys, followed by an American retreat, because Col. William Prescott’s force had enough powder to issue each man two rounds of ammunition. This was the reason for his famous order, “Don’t fire until you can see the whites of their eyes”; not having enough powder for a protracted battle, he was determined to make every shot count before he had to withdraw. (The British suffered over 1,000 men killed or wounded out of an original force of 2,200.)

In 1775, an inventory of all thirteen colonies’ powder stores revealed a total of 40 tons available. (A typical Royal Navy 100-gun First Rate, like HMS Victory, carried that much for her Marine detachment alone.) The British had not permitted powder manufacture in the colonies, and of course the war was started in earnest when General Thomas Gage sent troops to Lexington and Concord to seize Colonial powder stores believed to be in those places.

As such, when half of the colonies’ available powder (20 tons) was sent to Washington’s army at Cambridge, Massachusetts in the summer of 1775 to permit him to continue operations, Washington’s first order was to allocate a good portion of the precious propellant to the irregular forces- the woodsmen, hunters, and others who were his scouts, light infantry, and harassing forces. Mainly armed with the locally-made Pennsylvania (aka “Kentucky”) rifles.

His reasoning was simple. First of all, the average rifle bore was around .45, versus about .69 or even .75 for a musket. The rifles therefore used less powder and lead per shot. More importantly, from a logistics standpoint, the musket-armed line infantry he was raising and trying to train would be firing in volleys, expending powder in large quantities he simply did not have available. The riflemen, by comparison, would fire one or at most two shots, mostly from ambush, and more importantly would be doing their utmost to hit a single target, usually an officer, with each shot.

The result was less powder expended for a greater degree of damage inflicted on the British Army’s command and control structure. And it worked.

The British protested this procedure, as shooting officers was the sort of thing which “just wasn’t done”. (The knightly ancestors of the predominantly-noble British officer class probably felt the same way about the longbow and crossbow in the hands of commoners, before Edward III made the longbow the “national weapon” of England.)

But it was an effective use of the available resources.

No, the Kentucky rifle didn’t win the American Revolution. But it certainly made the British officers corps’ job more difficult.

And one of the basic rules of war is, “If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying hard enough to win”.

(Data courtesy of ;

Kelly, Jack. Gunpowder- Alchemy, Bombards and Pyrotechnics; The History of the Explosive that Changed the World. New York; Basic Books, 2004. ISBN 0-465-03722-4 (PB). Chapter 10, “History Out Of Control”.)

While mainstream historians dispute that view, citing the battles fought in conventional European style with massed infantry firing smoothbore muskets “by the numbers” such as Yorktown, they often overlook the fact that those battles were by and large fought toward the end of the conflict (1780-83).

Earlier, the Continental Army was not capable of fighting “set-piece” battles because while there were certainly enough muskets to go around (Michael Bellesisles to the contrary), there simply wasn’t enough gunpowder available.

The Battle of Bunker Hill lasted for the duration of two musket volleys, followed by an American retreat, because Col. William Prescott’s force had enough powder to issue each man two rounds of ammunition. This was the reason for his famous order, “Don’t fire until you can see the whites of their eyes”; not having enough powder for a protracted battle, he was determined to make every shot count before he had to withdraw. (The British suffered over 1,000 men killed or wounded out of an original force of 2,200.)

In 1775, an inventory of all thirteen colonies’ powder stores revealed a total of 40 tons available. (A typical Royal Navy 100-gun First Rate, like HMS Victory, carried that much for her Marine detachment alone.) The British had not permitted powder manufacture in the colonies, and of course the war was started in earnest when General Thomas Gage sent troops to Lexington and Concord to seize Colonial powder stores believed to be in those places.

As such, when half of the colonies’ available powder (20 tons) was sent to Washington’s army at Cambridge, Massachusetts in the summer of 1775 to permit him to continue operations, Washington’s first order was to allocate a good portion of the precious propellant to the irregular forces- the woodsmen, hunters, and others who were his scouts, light infantry, and harassing forces. Mainly armed with the locally-made Pennsylvania (aka “Kentucky”) rifles.

His reasoning was simple. First of all, the average rifle bore was around .45, versus about .69 or even .75 for a musket. The rifles therefore used less powder and lead per shot. More importantly, from a logistics standpoint, the musket-armed line infantry he was raising and trying to train would be firing in volleys, expending powder in large quantities he simply did not have available. The riflemen, by comparison, would fire one or at most two shots, mostly from ambush, and more importantly would be doing their utmost to hit a single target, usually an officer, with each shot.

The result was less powder expended for a greater degree of damage inflicted on the British Army’s command and control structure. And it worked.

The British protested this procedure, as shooting officers was the sort of thing which “just wasn’t done”. (The knightly ancestors of the predominantly-noble British officer class probably felt the same way about the longbow and crossbow in the hands of commoners, before Edward III made the longbow the “national weapon” of England.)

But it was an effective use of the available resources.

No, the Kentucky rifle didn’t win the American Revolution. But it certainly made the British officers corps’ job more difficult.

And one of the basic rules of war is, “If you aren’t cheating, you aren’t trying hard enough to win”.

(Data courtesy of ;

Kelly, Jack. Gunpowder- Alchemy, Bombards and Pyrotechnics; The History of the Explosive that Changed the World. New York; Basic Books, 2004. ISBN 0-465-03722-4 (PB). Chapter 10, “History Out Of Control”.)

I do not want a gun. I also do not want people other than law enforcecent to carry concealed guns in public. I have the right to avoid associating with anyone who carries a concealed gun. If people want guns and to carry them in public, they should be visible to others who may then choose to leave to avoid any danger that concealed gun presents. Laws to this effect I believe are not inconsistent with the 2nd ammendment and anyone’s right to carry a gun.

On the one hand, concealed weapons carried by law-abiding citizens are a strong deterrent against violent crime, for the same reason that fleet ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs aka “boomers”) are a strong deterrent against nuclear war. A would-be attacker can never be sure exactly which potential victim might be able to retaliate with lethal force if they make the attempt.

On the other hand, the open carry of weapons is a powerful deterrent as well. Few criminals will risk bad odds of dying by attacking even an unarmed person if they can see that someone who is armed and presumably willing to use their weapon is within visual range.

This, by the way, is why the towns of the Western frontier were considerably less dangerous than Hollywood would have us believe. The “deadline” at Dodge City (the sign stating that anyone entering the town was required to leave their weapons at the sheriff’s office until leaving town) was a rather uncommon measure.

By comparison, the large cities of the East, with laws not dissimilar to those in New York, Boston, etc., today, were noted for violent crime. The criminals knew that nobody was likely to be able to defend themselves, so as long as they avoided the police (who often had nothing more than a baton, or “nightstick”, anyway), they could pretty much do as they pleased.

The moral is that an armed citizenry, whether the weapons are openly displayed or not, is a deterrent to violent crime. A disarmed citizenry, while making (often corrupt) politicians sleep more soundly, is little more than a flock of sheep waiting to be sheared.

Stan,
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson

You are free to not purchase or carry a gun, but you are not free to force you neighbor to do the same – except on your own property. I am endowed by my Creator with an unalienable right to life and self-defense (the two are inseparable), so that means I possess a natural right to carry a gun or any other means of self-defense – concealed or open. Only a tyrant would deny his fellow man the right to self-defense, and any such law is but the tyrant’s will – as it violates the right of the individual to the defense of his life.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action [to carry a concealed gun - or not] according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others [to carry a concealed gun or not].”

“Law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual [to carry a gun in defense of his right to life].”

Despite your irrational assertion, laws denying the right of an individual to bear arms – such as a concealed handgun – are in self-evident violation of the 2nd amendment.

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Amendment II, U.S. Constitution

Since our government is supposedly built on our constitution, and our constitution guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms –and the authors of said constitution have written extensively on that right being enumerated for the purpose of keeping the state in check, that, you may want to shop around for a country that better suits your particular tastes.

We’ve all heard that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Where, in such situations there are synonyms for outlaw, like the state.

Stan – You must be a Leftist. You don’t want a gun, and you don’t anyone except law enforcement to have a gun. That’s exactly the mantra of a Leftist. You forget two things. The bad guys are not going to listen to you, and so you endanger all law abiding citizens. (When seconds count, the police are where?) Check out DC where guns were illegal until recently, Baltimore where gun ownership is difficult, Chicago and Detroit. Also, sometimes, the police themselves are less than law abiding. Finally remember, that one of the first acts of the Nazis was to confiscate the guns of the people. They didn’t want anyone firing back at them as they rounded up everyone for those wonderful summer camps.

See, if the Chinese exercised their God given right to self defense, through the personal ownership of firearms, noone from the government could come to force them to abort their children. Nothing like a hail of lead to make tyrants rethink their positions.

They built the AK-47, and i think it is a much more dependable weapon than the colt AR-15, [M-16];… I sure believed that in Vietnam….as the ”16” jammed so bad…I own them both, and a slew of others….Why should the Chicoms be concerned with what I own,,….Because they fully expect to cause a lot of mischief here in the USA….They are buying up Idaho, to have a ‘backdoor’ to the USA…and I am sure Ob and Clinton asked them to say that…..Keep buying personal weapons, and all the assorted ammo you can afford to buy……You can always sell both, for a profit…..

Well, first, I’m sick to death of the Vietnam era, pre-A1 M-16 being the model of reference when discussing the AR platform. The AR-15 platform of today is so far superior to any of the Kalashnikov variants, unless they are heavily modified for reliability. I’ve fired, Czech, Chinese, and the old Soviet military variant of the AK-47 with their crappy, stinky, steel, Wolf ammo, and I’d take an AR any day. I’ve never experienced this “jam free” phenomenon in any AK-47 I’ve fired.

However, thanks to the input of our Special Forces, I’m able to have the 6.8 SPC variant of the AR-15, which is ballistically superior in every way to the 7.62X39. I am considering a 7.63X39 upper, however, for my AR. I mean, why not, there is a lot of cheap ammo out there in that caliber. I’ll save my 6.8 for hunting.

I will give this to the AK-47, in 50 – 100m shoots I can fire accurately with minimal aiming, and that is nice, but too many have this “magic gun” attitude about the AK-47, and it annoys me. Yes, the Vietnam era M-16 was released too early in its development due to politics. The main problems were lack of chrome lined barrel and the propellant of the ammunition, which caused unexpected residue, both contributed to the early stoppage problems that have made M-16 tales of unreliability in Vietnam so legendary.

This reminds of the attempt by a group of doctors, some time back, to label guns a “public health hazard.” I guess they thought guns were not only “bad”, but somehow contagious. You can’t make this stuff up.

Go figure people. The people who are buying up America and have taken over most of our debt meant to disarm us. Why do you think this is? So when they come to collect it will be easier to overrun us. Wake up people!! The rice burners can claim what they want and the U.N. small arms treaty can claim what it wants. America will never bow to the laws of a foreign nation. And with the last two administration’s waking the people of America up I can’t see anyone giving a gun up willingly.